"Hoss183," so only now due to put forth that the Columbia CAA is looking into this incident and declared it unsafe. Now how about quoting the CAA report. Would certainly help clear up the situation and would change a lot of the responses.
"Sqwak7700" wrote: Have to disagree. Unless something failed, a normal takeoff with all power plants producing the normal thrust, should not take up so much runway
Let me give you a little bit of my background. I have well over twenty years of operating heavy/jumbo aircraft. Something on the order of 18,000 hours. Lockheed, Air Bus and Boeing. Have operated every model of the 747, except the SP. I've been an instructor, check airman, standard Captain and FAA designate. So, this is not my first cricket match.
And there are a good handful of times that I have seen the fair end of the runway. Everyone was supported by the performance data. In the good old days this was all charted data, very susceptible to error, it was done by at least two different crew members independently. If different data came out we got deep into the data and made sure it was good. Today, we just verify the input data is accurate by two different individuals independently.
"Galaxy Flyer" 87% is most likely a nice figure and may generally be correct. If the data was for a wide range of weight and conditions it may be accurate. But this discussion is based on operating at maximum conditions of weight, temperature, wind, elevation and atmospheric pressure.
On a rather separate subject, but still using the runway available several operators have procedure in gusty condition to increase Vr/V2, thus using most if not all of the runway.
This board is open to all and many express either very well supported data and other just want to throw a spanner into the turbine.